U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Planning Update for January 2000

This is the third in a series of updates on revision of the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Alaska

Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges. This update describes where we are in the process, summarizes

the comments received, presents the alternatives being developed, and raises the issues of Wilderness and Wild &

Scenic rivers. It also tells you what happens next, and how you can help.

What has happened since our most recent

update:

Since you last heard from us, we have been working on

analyzing the comments on issues you sent last spring. 

We then used your comments to develop different

approaches to managing the refuges. Now that we

have some preliminary alternatives, we want your

opinions on whether or not we have a reasonable range

of alternatives to consider. Page 2 summarizes your

comments, and pages 3-5 describe the three

preliminary alternatives we re asking you to review.

Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers added

to the list of planning issues:

After the last series of public meetings, the Fish and

Wildlife Service clarified its policy regarding Wilderness

and Wild & Scenic rivers. As a result, we have been

directed to reevaluate existing recommendations for

Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers as part of our plan

revision. This is consistent with many comments we

have received as well; many people indicated that they

value the refuges  wild character and favored protection

of remote and sensitive areas of the refuges. 

The Becharof Wilderness comprising 503,000 acres

was established in 1980 by the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act. The existing wilderness

recommendation, developed in the 1980's, includes

399,000 acres on the Becharof refuge and 640,000

acres on the Alaska Peninsula refuge (currently

measured acreages). We would like your opinion on

whether this should be revised, keeping in mind that

these are just recommendations; Congress must pass a

law to actually create new Wilderness. 

The Wilderness Act specifies that Wilderness areas are

managed to retain their primeval character and

influence. Natural systems in Wilderness are allowed to

function unimpeded, except to respond to humancaused damage.

No rivers on the refuges are currently included in the

Wild & Scenic River system. The two nearest rivers in

the system are the Alagnak (Branch) River within

Katmai National Park and the Aniakchak River within

Aniakchak National Monument. Like Wilderness, rivers

(or segments of rivers) on the refuge would only be

added to the system by an act of Congress.

Designation as a Wild & Scenic River keeps a river in its

free-flowing state and maintains the outstanding values

that qualified the river for designation. The goal

essentially is to protect the special values of the river

and river corridor. 

Proposals for you to consider are on page 5. The table

on page 6 provides more information about both

Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers and how they

would affect refuge uses. 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof

National Wildlife Refuge Complex
What We Heard From You: 

We received many responses to our request for

comments on the planning issues. We heard from over

160 people at meetings and by mail and from both

individuals and organizations in Alaska and from

outside. We heard from people who attended meetings

at Naknek, South Naknek, Port Heiden, Perryville,

Chignik Lake, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Pilot Point,

and Egegik. We were weathered out of Ivanof Bay, but

we talked with residents there by phone.

In general, people value the naturalness of the refuge,

its wilderness qualities, and wildlife-related recreational

opportunities. A small proportion of the people who

commented felt that the values of the refuge were being

threatened by crowding or overuse.

This is a summary of the written and verbal comments

we received. A detailed summary of these comments

will be included in the draft comprehensive conservation

plan and environmental impact statement. 

Issue 1. Should we limit or prohibit access in some

remote or sensitive areas?

Many people favored taking some action to protect

remote and sensitive areas on the refuge by either

limiting the number of people or motorized access.

Nearly all local and lower 48 residents favored some

type of action, while other Alaska residents showed

lower levels of support.

Helicopters attracted the greatest response, with many

people stating that the recreational use of helicopters

should be prohibited or limited.

Many felt that fish and wildlife was a higher priority than 

public access though access is important to many. 

Educating visitors about impacts is preferred to limiting

use. 

Issue 2. Should we take actions to respond to

natural fluctuations of fish and wildlife populations? 

If so, what actions should we take?

People were divided on this issue with many local

residents favoring some type of action while other

Alaskans and non-residents were more divided on the

issue. Many favored letting nature takes its course. 

Those who favored intervention wanted us to be sure of

the causes of fluctuations before taking action.

People were divided regarding predator control. A

number of people specifically opposed predator control,

although several said it was acceptable as a last resort

or to protect endangered species. Local residents were

more supportive of predator control, especially to protect

populations of animals used for subsistence. 

Issue 3. Do we need to reduce conflicts among

refuge users and, if so, what should we do?

Local residents and non-Alaskans were more likely to

favor intervention, and limiting use when needed, than

were non-local Alaskans. Many people felt that we

should increase our monitoring of places where there

was potential for crowding or conflicts to occur. 

Generally, respondents gave a higher priority to local

and subsistence users than to guided or non-resident

visitors. Some people noted the importance of keeping

the refuge open to non-local use. Local residents

provided examples of conflicts between recreational and

subsistence users. 

4. How should we work with the State and private

landowners to address how activities on adjacent

lands and inholdings affect refuge lands, resources,

and users?

Generally, people felt that communication and

educational efforts should be used to prevent off-refuge

development from adversely affecting the refuge and its

uses. Respondents were divided as to the issue of

whether the refuge should work towards acquiring title

to, or easements on, inholdings from willing landowners. 

Some people suggested that agreements with

landowners and developing joint projects would

establish a good working relationship. A number of

people believed that working with the State and its

 controlled use area  policies could be effective.

5. What additional information do we need to

improve management of refuge resources, and what

information should have the highest priority?

People had a diversity of opinions about information

collection, some favored a focus on ecosystem function,

others emphasized a need to address current issues, or

visitor impacts. In general, people appeared highly

supportive of this role of refuge staff and of making

informed decisions about refuge management. Local

residents suggested we take advantage of local

knowledge and supported close monitoring of

subsistence species and predators.

'‹
Where we are now:

When we analyzed the comments about issues facing

the refuges, we found that current management works

well for most activities and needs of the refuge at this

time. That is not to say that we don t have room to

improve, but that the current comprehensive

management plan needs to be revised only in a few key

areas.

We need your help in deciding how to best address

several issues:

% which areas and rivers, if any, we should recommend

for Wilderness or Wild & Scenic River designation;

% how and where we should more intensively monitor

and manage recreational use of the refuge;

% to what extent should use of helicopters for

recreational purposes be limited or prohibited on the

refuge; 

% when there is biological justification to reduce

predators to help other species, how should the refuge

allow such actions to occur.

So far we have developed two possible alternative

approaches for managing the refuge over the next 10-

15 years. Continuing the current management direction

is also an option, so we have three alternatives for you

to review. 

Before discussing the options, we ll summarize the

existing management. We ll begin with a review of the

five management categories, or zones, ranging from

intensive management to designated Wilderness, that

are used to manage refuges in Alaska.

The following table provides a brief description of the

management categories. A full description of these

categories will be included in the draft comprehensive

conservation plan and environmental impact statement. 

Management Categories Used on Alaska Refuges

Management

Category

Management Approach

Intensive The presence of human intervention

may be very apparent. Generally

applied to small areas for specific

purposes (such as for Visitor

centers).

Moderate Focuses on maintaining, restoring or

enhancing habitats to maintain

healthy populations. Activities may

result in changes to the natural

environment but do not disrupt

natural processes.

Minimal Designed to maintain the

environment with very little evidence

of human caused change. Human

activities are managed to minimize

disturbance to habitats and

resources.

Wild & Scenic

Rivers

Emphasis is on maintaining the

natural function of the river system

and on protecting the qualities for

which the river was included in the

National system (see earlier

discussion for more information).

Wilderness Applies to areas designated by

Congress as part of the National

Wilderness Preservation System 

(see earlier discussion for more

information).

Alternative 1: Continue current management

The management direction of the Alaska

Peninsula/Becharof refuge complex is to preserve fish

and wildlife values and their natural diversity by placing

most of the lands outside of the Becharof Wilderness

Area in the minimal management category.

The Becharof Wilderness comprising 503,000 acres was

established in 1980 by ANILCA. An additional 399,000

acres of the Becharof Refuge and 640,000 of the Alaska

Peninsula Refuge have been recommended for

designation as wilderness in past plans. Congress has

yet to act on these proposals so these lands are

managed under the minimal management category.

Under the current management direction there are no

proposed or designated Wild & Scenic Rivers. 

 'Œ
Fish and Wildlife Management: Fish and wildlife

populations are managed in their natural diversity. This

concept recognizes that populations have natural

cycles. The State Board of Game and the Federal

Subsistence Board adjust harvest levels in response to

population changes. The Service established minimum

population levels for brown bear, caribou, moose,

tundra swan and sockeye salmon.

Predator control is not allowed on the Becharof Refuge. 

It may be allowed on the Alaska Peninsula Refuge

under certain circumstances to favor or protect select

wildlife species.

Recreational Opportunities. One refuge objective is 

to

maintain access to all areas of the refuges for

subsistence, recreation, and commercial users to the

maximum extent possible consistent with refuge

purposes.  The emphasis for recreational users is to

provide opportunities for short-term, low-density natural

resource-oriented recreation.

The number of air taxi and sport fishing guides

operating on the refuge is not limited. The number of

sport hunting guides is limited and is allocated based

upon Alaska regional policy.

Baseline public use monitoring has been conducted at

sites where crowding or conflicts have been reported or

are likely to occur, but site-specific management

objectives have not been developed. Conflicts between

user groups are addressed through increased

education. 

Helicopter landings for recreational access are not

allowed inside the designated Wilderness. Outside of

the Wilderness helicopter landings require special use

permits that are considered on a case by case basis. To

date, the refuge has not issued any permits for

recreational helicopter landings.

Alternative 2:

The basic management direction of the refuge would

not change. Most of the land outside of the Becharof

Wilderness Area would be in the Minimal Management

Category. The following management approaches

would be taken for fish and wildlife management and

recreation opportunities.

Fish and Wildlife Management. The minimum

population levels identified under current management

would no longer be considered. Wildlife populations on

the refuge are within their natural levels and natural

fluctuations are expected. Population objectives in use

by the State would be considered while monitoring

population trends. Normal population management

activities (state and federal board harvest regulations)

and environmental education would be the primary tools

for responding to population fluctuations. 

We would fully implement the wildlife inventory plan.

This would include studying the relationships between

habitat and key wildlife species, population dynamics

and estimates, predator-prey relationships, defining

sensitive areas, developing habitat maps, and continuing

studies of reproduction, survival and condition.

Predator control would be permitted only if ecologically

sound and biologically justified, and only after other

alternatives had been found impractical. The least

obtrusive methods would be used. We also would work

more closely with local residents to increase harvest of

predator species under existing seasons and bag limits.

Recreational Opportunities. Our goal would shift from

providing the maximum extent possible  of public use to

providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent activities

(hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography,

environmental education, interpretation) that are

appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes. 

We would increase our monitoring of recreational use

and its effects allowing us to know when further action is

needed to protect refuge resources, subsistence

opportunities, and compatible recreational activities. We

would monitor, or study, social and biological conditions

at various locations on the refuge, and talk to

recreational visitors and subsistence users to help us

determine how to maintain desirable conditions. The

response sheet included in this update asks for your

advice on what aspects of use we should monitor, and at

what locations. 

Based on the monitoring results, we could identify

standards  levels of indicators that should not be

exceeded  for different sites. If monitoring shows that

conditions are reaching the standards we would consider

taking actions at sites and times when resources,

desirable conditions, or opportunities were at risk. 

Actions could include special conditions on commercial

permits, increased education of visitors, voluntary

agreement with site guidelines, increased regulations, or

limits on visitor numbers at certain times or locations.

We would not impose further limits on use levels without

discussion with affected groups and an evaluation of

options to address the identified problems. 

The use of helicopters for recreational purposes would

remain prohibited in the Becharof Wilderness area. For

other areas of the refuge, the majority of remote or

sensitive areas would be closed to recreational

helicopter access. Outside of those areas, proposals

would be considered on a case by case basis.

'•
This table summarizes the main differences among the three alternatives we are considering. Remember,

we anticipate changing these alternatives based on your comments! 

Current management

(Alternative 1)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

fish and wildlife management existing wildlife inventory

plan not fully

implemented

increase our knowledge

of wildlife and habitat

needs and relationships

through increased

monitoring and research

same as Alternative 2

predator control not allowed on

Becharof, may be

allowed on AK

Peninsula refuge

would be allowed if best

and least obtrusive

management tool

no predator control

programs would be

allowed

public use monitoring and

management

study of public use is

reactive; no objectives

for specific sites have

been established

public use monitoring

program would be

created, and

management objectives

established as needed

based on results.

same as Alternative 2

helicopter landings for

recreational access - outside

of designated Wilderness

areas

may be allowed outside

of Wilderness on case

by case basis

would not be allowed in

a majority of sensitive or

remote areas, may be

considered on other

areas

would not be allowed

Alternative 3:

Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2 except for the

following actions.

Fish and Wildlife Management. Predator control would

not be allowed on the refuges.

Recreational Opportunities. Helicopter landings for

recreational purposes would not be allowed on any

portion of the refuges.

Adding Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River

recommendations to the alternatives:

We need to decide how to incorporate possible

Wilderness or Wild & Scenic River recommendations

into Alternatives 2 and 3. So far, we have developed

three options regarding Wild & Scenic Rivers:

1. No rivers would be recommended.

2. We could recommend one or two rivers--the

Agripina and/or a portion of the King Salmon

(Ugashik Unit) --for inclusion in the Wild &

Scenic River System. We feel that these are

outstanding examples of Alaskan rivers and that

designation would help protect their free flowing

condition and values. 

3. We could recommend other rivers as suggested

by the public.

We developed five options regarding designated

Wilderness: 

1. Recommend that no additional wilderness be

added.

2. Leave the proposal as it is, a recommendation

for the addition of 1,057,772 acres of wilderness. 

3. Recommend most lands in the Ugashik unit and

many lands in the Chignik unit. This would

recommend the addition of 2,058,728 acres of

wilderness but would not include proposed

transportation corridors. 

4. Recommend most refuge lands except a few

areas that would provide less opportunity for

solitude and have lower scenic values. This

would recommend the addition of 2,836,877

acres of wilderness. 

5. Recommend all lands within the refuge

boundaries except conveyed lands. This would

recommend the addition of 3,328,395 acres of

wilderness. 

'Ž
What Does Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Designation mean to users on the refuge?

How would designation

affect subsistence uses and

hunting, fishing, and other

activities?

What would the effects be on

motorized public uses?

What activities would not be

allowed?

How would state and private

lands be affected if they lie

within the designated areas?

How are areas

recommended for

designation managed until

Congress acts?

What lands or waters qualify

to even be considered for

possible designation?

Wilderness

Subsistence use, traditional access,

hunting, fishing and other recreation,

and traditional commercial activities

(including guiding and outfitting) would

be allowed to continue but use of some

mechanized equipment could be

restricted. For example, local residents

engaged in subsistence activities may

use chainsaws (but not other motorized

and mechanized equipment not related

to transportation, such as generators

and water pumps).

Airplanes, snowmobiles, and

motorboats are generally allowed in

Wilderness in Alaska. Motorized and

mechanized equipment is allowed for

several purposes: access for

subsistence; access for traditional

activities and to and from villages and

homesites; and access to State or

privately owned lands (including

subsurface rights).

Activities which would alter the

wilderness character of the area are not

allowed. Examples are large scale

developments, oil, gas, and other

mineral development, and most surface

disturbing activities. Rights of way for

roads or utilities would be difficult to

obtain, but allowed.

State and private lands would not be

affected by a wilderness designation. 

Access would still be assured.

Areas recommended for Wilderness

would be managed the same as the

other refuge lands in the area.

Management would not change unless

Congress passed an act designating the

proposed areas as Wilderness.

In general, the area must be affected

primarily by the forces of nature, and

provide opportunities for solitude. All of

the refuge qualifies, although some

areas meet these criteria better than

others. For example, areas where

motorized subsistence use occurs

would have fewer opportunities for

solitude.

Wild & Scenic Rivers

All existing subsistence and

recreational uses would continue as

before. Recreational use could be

limited or additional regulations

imposed in the future if the river

corridor s values were being damaged

or were at risk.

There are no special provisions

regulating use of motors; existing

patterns of motorized uses would

continue.

Activities which would alter the freeflowing character of the river, such as

dams or diversions. Other activities

could be regulated. If the river is

classified as Wild then mining would

not be allowed in the river corridor.

Management of state and private

lands is not subject to provisions of the

Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. 

They would be managed to maintain

their free-flowing character and to

maintain their outstanding values.

The river or segment must be free

flowing and have one or more

outstanding values or opportunities.

Most refuge rivers meet these criteria,

but a few stand out: the Agripina, Dog

Salmon, King Salmon (both the

Ugashik and Egegik tributaries),

Ugashik Narrows, Meshik, Egegik, and

Ruth rivers, Ugashik Narrows and Big

Creek.

 '•
What happens next:

Once we receive your comments, we will finalize a

range of alternatives to consider for the draft

comprehensive conservation plan and environmental

impact statement. We will assess the environmental

effects that would result from implementing each

alternative. When we send you the draft plan and EIS

next fall we will ask for your input on the alternatives

again. Typically, the management direction that is

eventually chosen is some combination of those

presented in the Draft EIS, modified by comments from

the public.

What you can do to help:

We would like to get your suggestions on creating

alternatives. The enclosed work sheet can help you

focus your responses but you can respond any way you

choose. To be most helpful please try and return your

comments to us by March 1, 2000. If you miss that

date, please respond anyway because we want to hear

from you and will do our best to consider your comments

whenever they arrive. We will hold meetings in the local

communities in January and early February. Please

attend if you are in town!

How to contact us:

In addition to sending in the enclosed work sheet, you

can contact the planning team leader or refuge manager

with comments or questions. You can reach us by email

at:

FW7_APB_Planning@fws.gov

Team Leader:

Peter Wikoff

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Division of Refuges - Mail Stop 231

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3837

Refuge Manager:

Daryle R. Lons

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 277

King Salmon, Alaska 99613

(907) 246-3339

The Schedule:

We intend to have the Draft plan and Environmental

Impact Statement out to you for review in the fall of

2000, and the Final Plan completed by early summer

2001.

'• 

The Timeline

Identify issues

What should we consider?

!“

Develop and analyze alternatives (we

are here now) What are some different

ways of acting on the issues?

!“

Choose alternative

Which is our preference at this point?

!“

Publish Draft plan

Public is asked to review and comment.

!“

Publish Final plan

Another chance for the public to see and

comment.

!“

Publish Record of Decision

The Fish and Wildlife Service publishes

its final decision.
PRESORTED

FIRST-CLA SS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGE 

PAID

PERMIT #G-077

ANCHORAGE, AK

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuges - Mail Stop 231

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Planning Update for January 2000 

This is the third planning update on revision of the comprehensive conservation plan for Alaska Peninsula and

Becharof National Wildlife Refuges. 

This update describes some preliminary management directions being considered, and asks for your help in

evaluating and revising them. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service:

Part of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for

conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for the benefit of

people. It has responsibility for migratory birds and fish, endangered species, and certain marine mammals. The

Fish and Wildlife Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world s largest collection of lands

set aside specifically for protection of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Today there are over 500 refuges

spread from Alaska to Puerto Rico, from Maine to Hawaii. Varying in size from a half acre to thousands of square

miles, they include over 90 million acres of the nation s best wildlife habitat. The vast majority of these lands are in

Alaska.

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof

National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges

Plan Revision Response Sheet, January 2000

The January 2000 update asks for comments on a number of issues facing the refuges. You may use this response sheet

to comment if you choose. To be most useful to us, please respond by March 1, 2000. Thanks for your help!

1. The update describes three preliminary alternatives--different approaches we could take to managing the

refuges over the next 10-15 years (one of the three is the existing management direction). Do you have any

suggestions for changes to any of the alternatives and how they address issues facing the refuges?

2. The update describes five possible recommendations regarding additional Wilderness on the refuges. Do

you have ideas or preferences about the Wilderness recommendations, or how they should be incorporated

into the management alternatives?

3. The update describes three possible recommendations for designating Wild & Scenic Rivers on the refuges.

Do you have any ideas or preferences about the Wild & Scenic River recommendations, or how they should

be incorporated into the management alternatives?

4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase our monitoring of public uses, to identify issues and concerns (such as

crowding, conflicts, or impacts to the resource) associated with public use before they become big problems.

Do you have any suggestions on what locations on the refuge, or what aspects of public use or resource

impacts, we should study?
Do you have any other comments?

Please fold on the lines, tape, and mail

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: to administer a national network of lands and waters

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

(Refuge Improvement Act, 1997)

Peter Wikoff, Team Leader

Refuge Planning - Mail Stop 231

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage AK 99503